Jump to content

Mwo Survival Increase.


22 replies to this topic

Poll: MwO Survival Increase (50 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you like concept 1 alone?

  1. Yes (14 votes [28.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 28.00%

  2. No (36 votes [72.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 72.00%

Do you like concept 2 alone?

  1. Yes (11 votes [22.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.00%

  2. No (39 votes [78.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 78.00%

Do you like the two concepts combined?

  1. Yes (13 votes [26.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.00%

  2. No (37 votes [74.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 74.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 MechTech Dragoon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 271 posts

Posted 14 April 2019 - 07:10 AM

TTK in MwO is still relatively low, not too bad but, it could use an increase that I don't think agility boosts will fix, especially when you get to higher weight classes. So, I'm going to bring up two concepts here for discussion.

First concept being, make armor/structure boosts from skill trees flat across the board.
In theory, lighter weight classes getting more out of the tree makes some sense since they have less overall armor.
However, this would be like a assault getting more out of the mobility tree than a light mech.

Assault's especially have problems when it comes to being focused down extremely easily by enemies when in a team format they should be the ones taking damage. This results in assault pilots more often than not being afraid to take damage since they don't have the speed to avoid it, and despite having a large amount of tonnage for armor they can still lose a side torso in one wrong peek.

So, make armor hardening 2.6% across the board, and skeletal density 4.3% across the board.
If i stick an atlas and an urbie next to each other, your going for the atlas. Not just because the atlas is a bigger threat, but because its also easier to kill.






Next concept, lets talk about back armor. People in MwO strip back armor down to the bare minimums of surviving one or two backshots to get more front armor. Sometimes they don't run any back armor at all just to squeeze a bit more out of their front.
They are forced to do this due to overall low survivability, where having a bit more rear armor isn't much of a choice because your sacrificing frontal armor to do so.

So, remove all back armor, add it to the frontal armor pools.
Set non adjustable (but increase-able with skills) armor values to the rear armor of each weight bracket in a form similar to this....

Rear Armor
20: 5
25: 5
30: 7
35: 7
40: 8
45: 8
50: 8
55: 8
60: 8
65: 8
70: 9
75: 9
80: 10
85:10
90: 12
95: 12
100: 12

These are not exact values I'm suggesting, just some numbers thrown out to give reference.




To put both concepts together into perspective. With both changes, we would see an across the board survive-ability increase, even on lighter mechs that are less effected.

For a piranha-1 skilled with full survival under both changes compared to current values it would look like this....(Im going to use mechdb auto max armor values for rear for current) pir autos to 2, atlas autos to 6.
Current VS Suggested changes
Current
CT: Front: 28 Rear:3 Structure:17
RT:Front: 23 Rear:3 Structure:14
LT:Front: 23 Rear:3 Structure:14

Suggested
CT:Front: 31 Rear: 6 Structure: 17
RT: Front: 26 Rear: 6 Structure 14
LT: Front: 26 Rear: 6 Structure 14


Now well do the same for an Atlas-D
Current VS Suggested changes
Current
CT: Front: 161 Rear:8 Structure:78
RT:Front: 119 Rear:8 Structure:53
LT:Front: 119 Rear:8 Structure:53

Suggested
CT:Front: 192 Rear:16 Structure: 88
RT: Front: 144 Rear: 16 Structure: 60
LT: Front: 144 Rear: 16 Structure: 60

All in all we do three things by doing this....increase TTK without large re-balances.
Remove possibilities of newbies or less experienced equipping too much rear armor
and open avenues for rear armor quirks for things like the awesome, which is known for its rear armor.

If you increase a users ability to take a hit, they'll be more willing to take that hit.

Edited by MechTech Dragoon, 14 April 2019 - 07:23 AM.


#2 Killjoy786

    Member

  • Pip
  • The Hungry
  • The Hungry
  • 14 posts

Posted 14 April 2019 - 01:50 PM

I see people voting no, I'm honestly curious on what they do not like about each concept, but no one has made a comment on this thread so far, so if anyone who has voted no OR vote no in the future, leave a reply as to why/what you don't like about the concepts, and obv just don't say "They suck" or some other stuff like that, leave a educated reply lol

#3 OZHomerOZ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • 1,930 posts

Posted 14 April 2019 - 07:01 PM

Armour is already double or triple standard values.

In my mind the real reason for low TTL is skill gap. Due to busted match makers upward bias.

Fix MM TTK will increase.

#4 Psycho Cop

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 76 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 15 April 2019 - 01:47 AM

A baseline adjustment in mobility will do much more for survivability.
When your mechs can actually torso twist off the damage and manouvre themselves in good and out of bad positions, that will reduce the need for even more pilots wanting more armor, because they don't know how to torso twist or position correctly.


#5 MechTech Dragoon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 271 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 06:00 AM

Armor is double battletech values yes, pinpoint damage capability and overall damage output is also much higher than btech values.

Baseline mobility is already being increased. Increasing baseline mobility for heavier classes also reduces survive-ability of lighter classes directly.
It also increases the tendency towards peak and poke play-styles and dead-side mechs, not solving the problem of "Players aren't willing to take damage when necessary"

#6 Thrudvangar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 637 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 07:58 AM

Increase in TTK is always good imho...

Increasing armor/structure and/or decrease weapon damage...
Also a good thing would be in nerfing all the high alpha pinpoint dmg builds...

#7 Horseman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,161 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 15 April 2019 - 11:07 AM

View PostMechTech Dragoon, on 14 April 2019 - 07:10 AM, said:

TTK in MwO is still relatively low, not too bad but, it could use an increase that I don't think agility boosts will fix, especially when you get to higher weight classes.
keep in mind that increasing TTTK gives skilled players more time to kick scrubs' asses.

Quote

First concept being, make armor/structure boosts from skill trees flat across the board.
In theory, lighter weight classes getting more out of the tree makes some sense since they have less overall armor.
However, this would be like a assault getting more out of the mobility tree than a light mech.

Assault's especially have problems when it comes to being focused down extremely easily by enemies when in a team format they should be the ones taking damage. This results in assault pilots more often than not being afraid to take damage since they don't have the speed to avoid it, and despite having a large amount of tonnage for armor they can still lose a side torso in one wrong peek.

So, make armor hardening 2.6% across the board, and skeletal density 4.3% across the board.
If i stick an atlas and an urbie next to each other, your going for the atlas. Not just because the atlas is a bigger threat, but because its also easier to kill.

Percentage-based survival tree doesn't make much sense for lights and percentage-based mobility tree doesn't make much sense for assaults. I think it would be better if in both of those cases the tree provided fixed values .

Quote

Next concept, lets talk about back armor. People in MwO strip back armor down to the bare minimums of surviving one or two backshots to get more front armor. Sometimes they don't run any back armor at all just to squeeze a bit more out of their front.
People in MWO who have the good sense to keep their back away from the enemy, you mean. There's plenty of newbies and scrubs who fail to grasp frontloading as a concept.
While I like the idea of automating the frontloading, this won't fly with stock mechs (which come with tabletop armor values)

#8 MechTech Dragoon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 271 posts

Posted 13 May 2019 - 08:49 AM

View PostHorseman, on 15 April 2019 - 11:07 AM, said:

keep in mind that increasing TTTK gives skilled players more time to kick scrubs' asses.

Percentage-based survival tree doesn't make much sense for lights and percentage-based mobility tree doesn't make much sense for assaults. I think it would be better if in both of those cases the tree provided fixed values .


It also provides more time for DPS based builds in heavier chassis to shine a little more equally compared to their burst-based counterparts. More TTK, better dps based effectiveness...less dying before you reach the fight. And while it does give higher skilled players more time to do work, it also improves upon the feeling of "IMA BIG ROBOT"
Nobody plays a giant robot game to get blown up in a few seconds.

I would be fine with this as well, generally my point here is that heavier mechs are far too easy to take down.


Quote

People in MWO who have the good sense to keep their back away from the enemy, you mean. There's plenty of newbies and scrubs who fail to grasp frontloading as a concept.
While I like the idea of automating the frontloading, this won't fly with stock mechs (which come with tabletop armor values)


This is a pretty simple fix of ignoring stock mech armor values and adding to another location. Its already done on mechs like the stalker and jenner.

#9 DeathlyEyes

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Messenger
  • 936 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationMetaphorical Island somewhere in the Pacific

Posted 14 May 2019 - 07:38 AM

The game needs smaller teams. It greatly reduces TTK when 12 mechs are not all shooting one mech. 5v5 or at the very least 8v8 should be how big teams are in QP.

#10 Gierling

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 313 posts

Posted 19 May 2019 - 12:04 PM

It's a moot point, you can't keep fooling with the balance of offense to defense without looking at the elephant in the room that is the N+1 problem and the fact that any advantage is prone to multiply.

The only way to solve the problem of stomps and steamrolling is to just bite the bullet and add respawns to normal gameplay. You will never balance offense and defense when you have a context where 12 players are shooting at 8.

Just add respawns, have dropships touch down on regular intervals (like every 30 seconds) and have game modes focus on accomplishing the objective (and you can set a kill count for Skrimish like first team to 25 kills). Boom, problem solved.

#11 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ogre
  • The Ogre
  • 6,694 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 19 May 2019 - 12:48 PM

View PostKilljoy786, on 14 April 2019 - 01:50 PM, said:

I see people voting no, I'm honestly curious on what they do not like about each concept, but no one has made a comment on this thread so far, so if anyone who has voted no OR vote no in the future, leave a reply as to why/what you don't like about the concepts, and obv just don't say "They suck" or some other stuff like that, leave a educated reply lol


Because it is the same as XxKrDragoonxX's other polls? Crackpot ideas that he spams the internet to garner support and flops on it's head like all the others.

TTK in MWO is HIGH for a FPS. And as pointed out many times now - increasing mobility raises TTK. You have Assaults with 600 points of armour yet they are unable to regularly use even 40% of that because their mobility is mostly rubbish.

So to say that mobility will not help shows a very, very grave lack of understanding of MWO and how it's played. Cast back to Pre desync/skill tree. There was LESS armour on the field because no skill nodes yet an Atlas could twist some 30% faster. What was the result? Atlas could spread damage significantly better than it can now.

And then saying people are "forced" to run low back armour??? What??? People run low back armour because why put armour in places that aren't going to get hit? That is just intelligent play and mechlab.

So that is why people are voting no - it's not addressing the actual problem and making things dull.

#12 MechTech Dragoon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 271 posts

Posted 19 May 2019 - 12:50 PM

View PostGierling, on 19 May 2019 - 12:04 PM, said:

It's a moot point, you can't keep fooling with the balance of offense to defense without looking at the elephant in the room that is the N+1 problem and the fact that any advantage is prone to multiply.

The only way to solve the problem of stomps and steamrolling is to just bite the bullet and add respawns to normal gameplay. You will never balance offense and defense when you have a context where 12 players are shooting at 8.

Just add respawns, have dropships touch down on regular intervals (like every 30 seconds) and have game modes focus on accomplishing the objective (and you can set a kill count for Skrimish like first team to 25 kills). Boom, problem solved.


I ******* wish lol. That thing that everyone botched about for the first like....3 years thr game was out?

If you decrease weapon pinpoint, add respawning+objective play, and increase survivability. You get MWLL without tanks/aircraft.
Which most people argue has better gameplay. Only reason it hasnt stomped mwo into the ground is mechlab and graphics.

#13 BlackhawkSC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bludgeon
  • The Bludgeon
  • 739 posts

Posted 19 May 2019 - 02:12 PM

Remember when mechs can actually twist damage and recover from oh s*** moments? Increase agility and that's how you get survivability back.

#14 MechTech Dragoon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 271 posts

Posted 19 May 2019 - 02:20 PM

View PostBlackhawkSC, on 19 May 2019 - 02:12 PM, said:

Remember when mechs can actually twist damage and recover from oh s*** moments? Increase agility and that's how you get survivability back.


Increasing agility to pre desync values will impact light mech survivability badly.

Aside from this, it won't be enough. As firepower trees increase damage output more than the survival tree increases survivability
And, the survivability of mechs at that point in time was also even ton for ton in terms of armor across all classes.

#15 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ogre
  • The Ogre
  • 6,694 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 19 May 2019 - 02:28 PM

View PostMechTech Dragoon, on 19 May 2019 - 02:20 PM, said:

Increasing agility to pre desync values will impact light mech survivability badly.


How? They, in many cases, become more agile.

Thus a buff to them which is a positive impact to survivabilty Posted Image

No surprise this poll, like all your others, is going belly up... It appears you really don't understand MWO gameplay or it's issues.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 19 May 2019 - 02:29 PM.


#16 BlackhawkSC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bludgeon
  • The Bludgeon
  • 739 posts

Posted 19 May 2019 - 11:23 PM

View PostMechTech Dragoon, on 19 May 2019 - 02:20 PM, said:

Increasing agility to pre desync values will impact light mech survivability badly

I don't have the old mobility values at hand but from my old recordings, just to take an example, I measured the RVN-3L accelerated at about 97 kph/s pre-desync with its max engine. With max Kinetic Burst nodes, right now the RVN-3L only hits 70 kph/s.

Just look at some older videos and compare with the new ones you'll see just with that example, the old Raven stopped on a dime and dodged incoming fire easily. Every mech, assaults to lights, will survive longer with increased agility.

I also answered on Outreach regarding the firepower tree.

Edited by BlackhawkSC, 20 May 2019 - 01:53 AM.


#17 AphroThunder

    Rookie

  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 05:25 PM

I don't usually forum post and I'm not trying to be rude here, but you might benefit from taking some more time to get to know the game and its mechanics before posting ideas for sweeping reforms to the game and expecting a positive response. I'm not gonna link your Jarl's List stats, but they indicate that you don't really have a strong grasp of the fundamentals of the game as it stands. Arguing with people like BlackHawkSC who have far more mastery over the games fundamentals than you makes you look a little foolish. Especially when you claim agility changes will hurt lights, a class you have spent almost no play time with. Clearly you have enthusiasm for the game and want to see it grow and improve, a highly commendable goal, but if you want those suggestions to be taken seriously then you need to better understand the systems that you are critiquing.

Edited by AphroThunder, 20 May 2019 - 05:26 PM.


#18 Hierarch

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 49 posts

Posted 21 May 2019 - 05:45 AM

Thanks for taking your time to post your thoughts on the game.
Also lol Jarls list.

#19 Kiiyor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 5,478 posts
  • LocationSCIENCE.

Posted 21 May 2019 - 10:26 PM

I've always been partial to a dramatic increase in structure health, combined with a greatly expanded crit system.

Battlemechs are ancient and venerable machines. Some are hundreds of years old, and have survived countless battles... in the lore. In MWO, your mech can keel over in mere seconds if a Dire sniffs at you. Currently, if a pirahna vomits on an exposed component, all your equipment evaporates instantly. Nothing venerable about that.

Imagine if your mech had slowly escalating critical effects as you had your structure gnawed away. Increase structure health and the health of components, and give them several crits worth of escalating negative effects.

- Damaged leg actuators making your mech noticeably limp, affecting your aim with each step with the damaged leg and slowing you slightly.
- Arm actuator hits slowing your arm movement dramatically or even locking it in position
- Damaged weapons generating extra heat, increasing cooldown, affecting accuracy, or even weapon misfires.
- Engine crits giving you sporadic speed dips or random heat increases and temporary loss of power.
- Sensor crits screwing up your hud
- Gyro hits slowing your turn rate or even your torso twist speeds

I'd love for the removal of armour on a component to NOT signal the near immediate end of your game, and instead give you the feeling of your mighty war machine slowly dying around you.

#20 Kamikaze Viking

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 307 posts
  • LocationStay on Topic... STAY ON TOPIC!!!

Posted 22 May 2019 - 12:37 AM

Op think about this example (yes I know i'm making assumptions here)

The kinds of people who need more armour are the ones who generally play passively and wait for the enemy to get worn down my other team mates before attempting to make their plays.

So lets say the enemy nascars toward them and since they weren't trading with the enemy and saving their armour to the end... therefore the 5 enemy mechs rolling over the hill at you havent been hurt very much yet and they ALSO GET THE ARMOUR BONUSES YOU HAVE SUGGESTED, and hence will be even harder to kill anyway.

Edited by Kamikaze Viking, 22 May 2019 - 12:38 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users